Gallagher propose schools under power lines

In a desperate attempt to influence the Local Plan Consultation, a ‘newsletter’ has been issued in which Gallagher propose new schools under power lines. This is a last minute attempt to try and shoehorn a new settlement at Winchfield into the draft Local Plan. Apparently, the newsletter has only been issued to residents of Fleet and Church Crookham.

We have seen the newsletter and compared the schematic to the local OS map. As far as we can tell, the high voltage power line goes directly over the school grounds. Moreover, there is a pylon directly on top of the sports pitches. Our best attempt at showing the location of the school, and powerline is shown in the graphic above. Aside from the obvious electrocution risk, overhead power lines have been linked to increased risk of childhood cancers such as leukaemia. The secondary school is also right next to the mainline railway line.

The document has been issued by Curtin & Co on behalf of Gallagher. They apparently specialise in the ‘Politics of Planning’. The contact given is David Scane, who can be reached at davids@curtinandco.com. We deplore this crony corporatism. We recommend that WeHeartHart supporters email this man. We should let him know that we don’t approve of these shabby tactics and how ridiculous it is to propose schools in such an unsafe location.

Of course, no evidence has been produced in the Local Plan to show a new school is required. Even if such evidence is produced, it isn’t clear why we can’t simply allocate land for a school without the hundreds of acres for housing.

We have updated our guidance with this new information in our suggested response to the consultation that can be found on the download link below. Please do make amendments into your own words and submit it to planningpolicy@hart.gov.uk before the deadline of 5pm on 9th June 2017. All of the Council’s consultation documents can be found here.

“The association between magnetic fields and an increased risk of childhood leukaemia is often expressed as occurring at long-term average fields greater than 0.4 µT. For magnetic fields, therefore, we recognise that, within the overall concept of “as low as reasonably achievable”, there is a greater imperative to reduce fields that are above 0.4 µT, and a lesser imperative to reduce fields that are below 0.4 µT, and what is “reasonable” will be different in these situations.”

It’s not true. It’s so far from being true that it busrts through the boundaries of ‘post-truth’ and ‘alt-fact’. Even the Trump would blush. I believe that one – 1 – child did not get their prefered place this year, and that was because of parental cock up. So. How many secondary schools do we actually need????

If it is true that this misleading newsletter only went to residents in Fleet and Church Crookham who arranged that? It will not be a coincidence. Who in that area is so desperate for Winchfield to be built on despite it resulting in unnecessary development in Hart. As I have said before, something stinks

I’ve received the propaganda leaflet from Gallagher, and i was a little puzzled by the twice-repeated assertion that ‘hundreds of (Hart)! children are currently unable to get into their first choice of school’ (secondary children)

Ok, I see. But, the Dept of Health (according to the Guardian article from 2005), the science based groups involved in research (like cancer UK) and the US gov etc, have yet to find a causal link or a significant statistical link. EM Watch are a pressure group so I think their opinions need to be read in this context. This summary from cancer UK probably puts it best: “There is little strong evidence to link power lines to adult cancers, or to most types of childhood cancer. But some studies have suggested a statistical link between exposure to magnetic fields and a higher risk of childhood leukaemia. At the moment, we don’t have enough convincing evidence to be sure whether the link is real, but if it were, the impact would be small – only around 1% of childhood leukaemias”. As I was getting at above, I don’t think mixing power lines and people is a good idea, but trying to use cancer as an argument will fail scrutiny because because (as far as I’m aware) no reputable scientific organisation finds/states significant direct causality.

That’s not to say there couldn’t be a link with Alzheimers or any other long term condition in later life. It seems common sense to me that as brains and nerves work by using electrical impulses and blood depends on iron content there will be a link with electro-magnetic fields induced by current flow in high voltage cables. There must be a risk.

Children living near high-voltage power lines are substantially more likely to develop leukaemia, researchers from Oxford University and the national electricity grid report today in the British Medical Journal.

I received the leaflet too (as a resident of Fleet). As I’ve said many times over (including to all our councillors and in this round of the draft plan), when we last voted on this, Winchfield was the preferred choice for development, with even distribution second and east Hart third (Q4 of this https://www.hart.gov.uk/sites/default/files/4_The_Council/Policies_and_published_documents/Planning_policy/Local_Plan/Local_plan_comments_2016/Refined%20Housing%20Options%20Consultation%202016%20summary%20of%20responses%20-%20080816%20Update.pdf). So, Gallagher shouldn’t have needed to say anything to promote Winchfield. But, like me, they probably feel that the last administration (now fortunately in opposition) didn’t want to take too much notice of democracy, so they needed to remind people about Winchfield as an option, so I don’t blame them for that. As I’ve also said many times here, I think we should share the burden, so I’d prefer the 2nd place choice, but that’s not what Hart voted for. As for the power line argument, having a power line running over a school playing field is hardly ideal at best and down right stupid at worst, but I’m surprised you are trying to link this to cancer. The Guardian article (referenced in the linked webpage) states that there is no evidence for a link between power lines and cancer (it refers to the Dept of Health for this). Also, the message in the US is the same too https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/electromagnetic-fields-fact-sheet. In other words, there isn’t any scientific evidence for this, so it might be worth looking for another route to objection, because the cancer approach isn’t likely to be treated seriously because the science doesn’t back up the link (regardless of the obvious concerns around this)

Well said Chris we seem to get Gas Line at Murrell Green, Power line at Winchfield but no mention of Chemical contamination at Hartland Park, perhaps because that does not suit the argument for brownfield. All sites have constraints that need to be overcome but in the last consultation the large majority had Winchfield as their least worst option.

But to be honest I think the consultation was so badly worded you can’t really say that people wanted it. There was no brownfield option- Muriel Green wasn’t on the cards nor was the one at Pystock. So that consultation is irrelevant now. Steve Foster was a big supporter and was part of the last council for the Conservatives.

The point is that it wasn’t and isn’t irrelevant. It was quite clear, even if you Winchfield to one side, that creating urban extensions was the least favourite approach (Pyestock for example) and the distributed approach was second favourite. This was supposed to feed into this consultation, but, it didn’t. For some reason the council decided to ignore the wishes of the people of Hart and do what they wanted. It is just downright undemocratic. On the plus side, the old administration is out of power now, so hopefully we now have a group that do listen to their electorate.

James Renwick – I seem to remember you using this argument before. The reason I disagree is the same as before. Hart council defines eastern Hart as the urban area, not west hart. So by their definition, and the meaning in the original consultation, development in west hart is not classified as urban extensions. If you want to classify west hart, and winchfield in particularly, as the urban area of Hart, I’d find it strange but, accept it as your opinion. Obviously though this would mean that its status as the more rural part of hart would be lost and many of the arguments that have been put forward for not developing there based on its more rural status would be lost too.

James Renwick – All I have done is state what was voted on when we last voted on this and the definition that Hart council used for the previous and current consultation. I have also pointed out that the council ignored the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Hart. When did I say it was fine? What is bizarre about me saying the truth? You may not agree with the planning approach of your council or their approach to democracy (and I’d be with you on that), but I don’t see how this bizarre.

Chris Blake you said James Renwick – “If you want to classify west hart, and winchfield in particularly, as the urban area of Hart, I’d find it strange but, accept it as your opinion”. This is a bizarre argument which you fail to address in your reply. 4000 homes in Winchfield will make an urban area. What will be left as rural? I wouldn’t say it is truthful! It is you that wants to classify Winchfield as urban not me.

Ok, I see the point you are making. My point though is that I was just following your argument. You want to claim that this area is urban already to claim any development is an urban extension. So I am not making the claim it is urban, you are. As I said, I find the argument a strange one, but if that’s how you want to classify it, then I will not argue with you, but it does then mean that you can’t (in my opinion) argue to retain the area’s rural character because you have stated it is not rural, but instead is urban. For the record, unlike you, I think west Hart is currently more currently more rural and east hart.

Chris Blake the point I am making is really simple. By building winchfield and/or you are in effect extending hartley Wintney and the same as an urban extension and you lose any rural character. It’s not hard to understand. If it makes you feel better to consider it a new town and a new urban area then that’s up to you.

With respect James, I don’t find that reply helpful or constructive. But, perhaps it would help if I told you my view rather than you guessing at it: I think large scale development in east or west Hart is going to impact/damage something/somebody. There will be winners and losers either way. So, the only way I can think of addressing this is look at each option on its merit and impact, which is why I can’t subscribe to the notion that all greenfield development is always bad and all brownfield development is always good. Sometimes it’s true and sometimes it isn’t. You need to look at the evidence and take public opinion into account and make decisions based on this.

Chris Blake I don’t think there is any difference between the tone of our messages and you told me what I think a few times. I don’t think I am being any more or less constructive than you.
Why is building in east hart more likely to damage someone than in west hart. Have you considered, for example that the current proposals are to push all he extra traffic through hook and hartley Wintney and what the traffic pollution impacts are? At least pyestock will get a relief road. Also what I find odd from some people’s point of view is that it is obvious from looking at road maps that a new town in winchfield will cause a lot of extra traffic through crookham village and fleet but they don’t even challenge the high housing numbers at all.

Ok, point taken, in that case I think we perhaps should both be more conscious of tone. Looking at your questions, I don’t think I’ve argued this before on a comparative basis, but I guess one answer to your question on impact to people could be that many more people live in east Hart so the so the impact on people would be greater from the point of view of more people negatively affected by developments. No, I haven’t considered the pollution impact on Hook and Hartley Wintney because I haven’t tried to argue for specific scheme developments in these areas or looked in detail at what is being proposed for them. I have looked at Pyestock in some detail though and it’s impact would be considerable from a road pollution point of view by adding a very large number of cars on to roads that already queue badly on a regular basis. i.e. you keep at a minimum the existing travel/queuing pollution; you get pollution from new journeys; and you get increased queuing so pollution from the additional stationary traffic (both existing and new). For Pyestock, my understanding that the relief road idea has been quietly dropped (although I may have been misinformed on this?). But anyway, the relief road works well for the warehouse development because the majority of journeys would be to/from the M3. For a residential development it is unlikely to help because this is unlikely to be the case. In fact the supporters of Pyestock tried to argue it both ways – Pyestock would be good for Fleet centre because it would bring people to it; and then elsewhere tried to argue that the relief road would help Fleet by stopping traffic going to Fleet. In terms of numbers of housing, I have challenged this on an individual basis to all Hart councillors and as part of the consultation. I don’t want to see any part of Hart suffer, east or west, but if we have to suffer, I’d prefer we shared the pain.

regulation 18 is a consultation there is a legal duty to consult business, developers as well as residents All the devlopoers will be adding their 2p worth for Grove Farm, Pale Lane, Cross Farm Winchfield and the rest. That is part of the process if Hart do not do this then they would be liable to a JR